1. It's simple and free.
2. Your username cannot be used by guests.
3. You can personalise your profile picture.
4. Comments remain editable for 5 mins after submitting.
5. There are no captchas when you submit a comment.
6. You are informed of replies to your comments.
7. Your comments are archived for future reference.

NOTE: The charity is NOT 2.5% of earnings - it is 2.5% or SAVINGS! - NO savings - no payment required. YOU CALCULATE YOUR OWN AMOUNT!

Add your reply

Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code

Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL

Guest:
MB(616 days ago)

Which is the nicer person (as implied in this video)?

a) someone who gives a sum to charity because they feel it the right thing for a cohesive sociality or b) someone that gives to charity because they selfishly fear that THEY personally will have nasty repercussion in the afterlife if they do not do as instructed?

Atheism yet again vilified by people unknowingly groomed to not be allowed to think for themselves by a select “elite” who stand to lose their control/dominance/wealth should they start to do so! Come on you believers work it yourselves, pause contemplate think! it’s not that hard you can do it.

Your god gave you a brain to think, he can’t then punish you for using it even if that was to work out for yourself that he does not exist.

a) someone who gives a sum to charity because they feel it the right thing for a cohesive sociality or b) someone that gives to charity because they selfishly fear that THEY personally will have nasty repercussion in the afterlife if they do not do as instructed?

Atheism yet again vilified by people unknowingly groomed to not be allowed to think for themselves by a select “elite” who stand to lose their control/dominance/wealth should they start to do so! Come on you believers work it yourselves, pause contemplate think! it’s not that hard you can do it.

Your god gave you a brain to think, he can’t then punish you for using it even if that was to work out for yourself that he does not exist.

Add your reply

Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code

Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL

Guest:
(616 days ago)

I would also be interested in knowing where they get those numbers of charity donations per group. As for me, I do not reveal my contributions to anyone and I also do not reveal my religious affiliations. If others are like me, there is no way to know those numbers are real.

I would also be interested in knowing where they get those numbers of charity donations per group. As for me, I do not reveal my contributions to anyone and I also do not reveal my religious affiliations. If others are like me, there is no way to know those numbers are real.

Add your reply

Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code

Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL

Guest:
Hitchiker(613 days ago)

I find it hard to believe that you would donate money or time to anyone.

I find it hard to believe that you would donate money or time to anyone.

Add your reply

Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code

Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL

Guest:
(615 days ago)

who cares? if billions of people are doing good and being charitable because they beleve in some kind of god fine. they are doing GOOD.. its not a contest just grow up. just another atheist trying to vilify anyone with another beleif system including those that give to charitable. basicaly your idols tell you god belevers are bad so you have to think of how even giving to charity must be bad as well.... how desperate and hood winked must you be? how low in self esteem to try and make your giving charity "nicer" than when a belever does it. GROW UP!!!!!

who cares? if billions of people are doing good and being charitable because they beleve in some kind of god fine. they are doing GOOD.. its not a contest just grow up. just another atheist trying to vilify anyone with another beleif system including those that give to charitable. basicaly your idols tell you god belevers are bad so you have to think of how even giving to charity must be bad as well.... how desperate and hood winked must you be? how low in self esteem to try and make your giving charity "nicer" than when a belever does it. GROW UP!!!!!

Add your reply

Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code

Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL

Guest:
MB(615 days ago)

No one does really care but thats the point! It was not I that has made a non factual video! and nor I that lied about atheist charitable donations in the Video! Nor I that brought up atheist in the place. Just face it if the world was just populated by atheist (who donate more for nice reasons) there would be less need for charity as most of the suffering now, and over the years, has been caused by religion.

No one does really care but thats the point! It was not I that has made a non factual video! and nor I that lied about atheist charitable donations in the Video! Nor I that brought up atheist in the place. Just face it if the world was just populated by atheist (who donate more for nice reasons) there would be less need for charity as most of the suffering now, and over the years, has been caused by religion.

Grow-up! No you Growwww-upppppp nurrrrrrrrr

Add your reply

Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code

Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL

Guest:
(614 days ago)

what? which bits of the video werent factual? its your opinion that religious people give more to charity for the wrong reasons but its a statistic fact that they give more to charity than atheists. now you face it!! you were the 1st person here to mention athiesm playing the victim card. poor athiests geting vilified LOL. actualy the world has tried athiest regemes plenty of times like stalin and pol pot and even north korea. i cant remember that going to well. death destruction and suffering is caused by greed and power and politics not religion. i am not religous but most of the worlds success such as science and art has come from religous people.

what? which bits of the video werent factual? its your opinion that religious people give more to charity for the wrong reasons but its a statistic fact that they give more to charity than atheists. now you face it!! you were the 1st person here to mention athiesm playing the victim card. poor athiests geting vilified LOL. actualy the world has tried athiest regemes plenty of times like stalin and pol pot and even north korea. i cant remember that going to well. death destruction and suffering is caused by greed and power and politics not religion. i am not religous but most of the worlds success such as science and art has come from religous people.

Add your reply

Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code

Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL

Guest:
(614 days ago)

Secular countries give far far more donations and give more overseas aid, based on GDP, than religious non-secular countries. So we can therefore assume atheist are more charitable.

that is some dumb reasoning right there. which secular countrys have more athiests in that god belevers and lets start from there. your properly in denial!!!

Add your reply

Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code

Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL

Guest:
MB(614 days ago)

Science and religion! When did that ever go hand in hand? You need read your history again. May be science did improve a bit when the church finally stopped burning scientist on the stake. And don't get me started on evolution...

Science and religion! When did that ever go hand in hand? You need read your history again. May be science did improve a bit when the church finally stopped burning scientist on the stake. And don't get me started on evolution...

Add your reply

Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code

Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL

Guest:
(614 days ago)

???? science and religon has ALWAYS been hand in hand. most early scientists were proper belevers!! galileo was a major roman catholic (wanted to be priest). copernicus was religous, newton, darwin, basicly all of them. they just all wanted to understand the world that they thought god had created and it pushed them to find out more. i even learned from this exact website that the man who invented the big bang theory was actualy priest. its only dumb athiests that think religon and science dont mix. its been mixing ever since ever!!

???? science and religon has ALWAYS been hand in hand. most early scientists were proper belevers!! galileo was a major roman catholic (wanted to be priest). copernicus was religous, newton, darwin, basicly all of them. they just all wanted to understand the world that they thought god had created and it pushed them to find out more. i even learned from this exact website that the man who invented the big bang theory was actualy priest. its only dumb athiests that think religon and science dont mix. its been mixing ever since ever!!

Add your reply

Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code

Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL

Guest:
MB(614 days ago)

hum! Galileo was convicted of heresy - Apr 12, 1633. Copernicus books where banned by the church. Darwin 1879 " an Agnostic would be the more correct description of my state of mind ".. do i need to go on

hum! Galileo was convicted of heresy - Apr 12, 1633. Copernicus books where banned by the church. Darwin 1879 " an Agnostic would be the more correct description of my state of mind ".. do i need to go on

Add your reply

Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code

Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL

Guest:
Hitchiker(613 days ago)

Religion and science were always on the opposite sides of each other. The church has always tried to keep down the discoverys of science. Religion has always had to change its ideas when confronted with science. Science has never had to change its ideas when confronted with religion.

Religion and science were always on the opposite sides of each other. The church has always tried to keep down the discoverys of science. Religion has always had to change its ideas when confronted with science. Science has never had to change its ideas when confronted with religion.

Add your reply

Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code

Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL

Guest:
PA(613 days ago)

Sorry to chip in here, but you're talking complete rubbish. Science and religion are different spheres - different 'magisteria'. If that wasn't the case, then the overwhelming majority of theistic scientists who discovered or postulated the scientific theories we have today would never have dared, or at least would never have continued to believe. I'm afraid on this one, history is against you. I can't recall reading about the water cycle in the Bible, or about friction and movement in the Quran. 'Guest' is completely right with the scientists he mentioned. Why would the person who first thought of the BBT preach on a Sunday if the two things contradicted each other? Do you honestly think you know more about the BBT or Christianity than Georges LeMaitre?

Within the last half a century or more, the people who are saying that science and religion don't mix are dogmatic atheists. The majority of religious people, and indeed a large proportion of our leading scientists, think that is nonsense. I agree with them.

Sorry to chip in here, but you're talking complete rubbish. Science and religion are different spheres - different 'magisteria'. If that wasn't the case, then the overwhelming majority of theistic scientists who discovered or postulated the scientific theories we have today would never have dared, or at least would never have continued to believe. I'm afraid on this one, history is against you. I can't recall reading about the water cycle in the Bible, or about friction and movement in the Quran. 'Guest' is completely right with the scientists he mentioned. Why would the person who first thought of the BBT preach on a Sunday if the two things contradicted each other? Do you honestly think you know more about the BBT or Christianity than Georges LeMaitre?

Within the last half a century or more, the people who are saying that science and religion don't mix are dogmatic atheists. The majority of religious people, and indeed a large proportion of our leading scientists, think that is nonsense. I agree with them.

Add your reply

Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code

Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL

WalterEgo(613 days ago)

Religion and science are opposite in the sense that religion begins with the truth, and then tries to fit what we observe with that truth - whereas science begins with what we observe, and then tries to figure out the truth.

Religion and science are opposite in the sense that religion begins with the truth, and then tries to fit what we observe with that truth - whereas science begins with what we observe, and then tries to figure out the truth.

Add your reply

Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code

Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL

Guest:
PA(613 days ago)

That's a lovely Walter-definition. There are plenty of people that know more than you about their religion, and more than you about science, and others who know about science and religion combined, who would disagree with you entirely.

That's a lovely Walter-definition. There are plenty of people that know more than you about their religion, and more than you about science, and others who know about science and religion combined, who would disagree with you entirely.

You really are fond of judging people on their knowledge or ignorance. I’m surprised you missed the opportunity to insert your own qualifications yet again. Judge less and you might free up your mind to come up with something interesting.

When evolution became fact, religions had to adapt or look ridiculous. That's how it works - science builds up a picture of reality based on hardcore evidence, and religions adapt by reinterpreting their scriptures to fit. Those that don't are sidelined, like Ken Ham and Islamists still rooted in the Middle Ages.

You really are fond of judging people on their knowledge or ignorance. I’m surprised you missed the opportunity to insert your own qualifications yet again. Judge less and you might free up your mind to come up with something interesting.

When evolution became fact, religions had to adapt or look ridiculous. That's how it works - science builds up a picture of reality based on hardcore evidence, and religions adapt by reinterpreting their scriptures to fit. Those that don't are sidelined, like Ken Ham and Islamists still rooted in the Middle Ages.

Add your reply

Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code

Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL

Guest:
Proud Agnostic(612 days ago)

Yes, agreed. I certainly do respect genuine expertise and judge specific people on ignorance (rather that groups of people like you do). I don't have the time to learn about everything, so I have a healthy deference to those that know more than me. That's not judging, that's just common-sense. If you didn't consider yourself the oracle on all subjects, I suppose it'd make more sense to you. And no, I have never mentioned a single academic qualification I have.

Nice try in redefining 'how science works'! Brilliant. I forget you're an expert in that too. There isn't an awful lot of adaptation of religion strictly necessary to accept evolution, as the theory that the Old Testament is allegorical was around long before Darwin. But yes you're right, people's interpretations of religion are able to adapt if need be, just as science is. I suppose by the same token, the scientists that still maintained flat earth theory was the absolute truth had to adapt when Magellan circumnavigated the globe, otherwise their science would have looked ridiculous. Thankfully for the most part religions and sacred texts don't concern themselves too much with the mechanics of the world - their core content is more about how we should live and why we are here, and such concepts will never be challenged by science.

Yes, agreed. I certainly do respect genuine expertise and judge specific people on ignorance (rather that groups of people like you do). I don't have the time to learn about everything, so I have a healthy deference to those that know more than me. That's not judging, that's just common-sense. If you didn't consider yourself the oracle on all subjects, I suppose it'd make more sense to you. And no, I have never mentioned a single academic qualification I have.

Nice try in redefining 'how science works'! Brilliant. I forget you're an expert in that too. There isn't an awful lot of adaptation of religion strictly necessary to accept evolution, as the theory that the Old Testament is allegorical was around long before Darwin. But yes you're right, people's interpretations of religion are able to adapt if need be, just as science is. I suppose by the same token, the scientists that still maintained flat earth theory was the absolute truth had to adapt when Magellan circumnavigated the globe, otherwise their science would have looked ridiculous. Thankfully for the most part religions and sacred texts don't concern themselves too much with the mechanics of the world - their core content is more about how we should live and why we are here, and such concepts will never be challenged by science.

Add your reply

Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code

Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL

WalterEgo(611 days ago)

What's wrong with you? Stop tarring all experts with the same brush. Now you're accusing me of being an expert, in fact many experts all rolled into one. I have never claimed to be an expert in anything. For someone who analyses text for a living, you have an amazing ability to make up shit.

"There isn't an awful lot of adaptation of religion strictly necessary to accept evolution ..." True. The bar is set so low in religion that going from "let there be light" to Big Bang theory is a small adaptation. Whereas in science, one data point out of place, and the theory is wrong or incomplete.

"Nice try in redefining 'how science works'! Brilliant." Thanks. Was I wrong? Oh btw, I wasn't redefining science, I was just looking at a bigger picture.

"Thankfully for the most part religions and sacred texts don't concern themselves too much with the mechanics of the world - their core content is more about how we should live and why we are here ..." Are you serious? If the purpose of life according to your religion is to go to heaven while sending as many infidels as possible to hell, at some point that idea will interact with the "mechanics of the world".

"... and such concepts will never be challenged by science." What "concepts" are you talking about? Science doesn't challenge concepts, it explains stuff. If that explanation contradicts your concept, then that's tough. Either show the explanation is wrong, change/adapt your concept, or be happy in the knowledge that you're probably wrong.

What's wrong with you? Stop tarring all experts with the same brush. Now you're accusing me of being an expert, in fact many experts all rolled into one. I have never claimed to be an expert in anything. For someone who analyses text for a living, you have an amazing ability to make up shit.

"There isn't an awful lot of adaptation of religion strictly necessary to accept evolution ..." True. The bar is set so low in religion that going from "let there be light" to Big Bang theory is a small adaptation. Whereas in science, one data point out of place, and the theory is wrong or incomplete.

"Nice try in redefining 'how science works'! Brilliant." Thanks. Was I wrong? Oh btw, I wasn't redefining science, I was just looking at a bigger picture.

"Thankfully for the most part religions and sacred texts don't concern themselves too much with the mechanics of the world - their core content is more about how we should live and why we are here ..." Are you serious? If the purpose of life according to your religion is to go to heaven while sending as many infidels as possible to hell, at some point that idea will interact with the "mechanics of the world".

"... and such concepts will never be challenged by science." What "concepts" are you talking about? Science doesn't challenge concepts, it explains stuff. If that explanation contradicts your concept, then that's tough. Either show the explanation is wrong, change/adapt your concept, or be happy in the knowledge that you're probably wrong.

Add your reply

Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code

Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL

Guest:
Proud Agnostic(610 days ago)

Latest comment:

Don't worry; I can assure you that I don't really think you're an expert. Calling you a "science expert" was a barrelful of sarcasm, obviously, obviously, obviously. However, I would be fascinated to hear what you would consider your specialist subject to be, because in the course of our discussions we have chartered a range of territory in which you seem to be thoroughly out of your comfort zone - from theology to philosophy, maths to science, human geography, history, the works. And when you often find yourself sinking, you play your 'cool kid' card of suggesting that knowing and reading things is bad, academia is just abstract and impractical, etc. etc. It's actually endearing. In one thread I even offered to change the subject to one of your choosing but no, you'd rather fumble along. I seriously hope you were picked first for the football team. Anyway.

This is also a simple concept; by referring to experts as experts, you are also 'tarring them with the same brush' as I am - that of knowing enough to be called an expert. It's identifying them. No generalisations or pigeon-holes are necessary - that's your habit, not mine. It's just the same logic with your racism apologetics; by referring to the racists we were talking about as racists, you were tarring them with the same brush as mine, simply of behaving in such a way to merit that label. Remember? It's the relationship between determiners and quantifiers. I don't have time. Google.

"Their core content is more about how we should live and why we are here, and such concepts will never be challenged by science." - "What concepts are you talking about?" Come on. 'Such'; UK Primary Level 3 reading comprehension; the first clause of that sentence - 'How we should live and why we are here'. In more detail, the concept of a good or virtuous life, the concept of a greater meaning to existence, etc. Unscientific concepts. If you're right in thinking that the core content of religion is reaching heaven and avoiding hell, it doesn't interact at all with the mechanics of the world. The mechanics of the world is the science - physics - the way things work. No religions are bothered by that. They're interested in why, and how we should behave. That's why science and religion have coexisted for so long -they rarely tread on each other's toes and simply describe different things. If the Bible or the Quran had tried to explain how water is absorbed by an organic membrane, or if the Origin of the Species had tried to give us examples of how we should treat our neighbours, then there would be much more conflict. It's generally only fervent atheists and ultra conservative religious zealots that don't see that difference; you're in the same boat once again.

Don't worry; I can assure you that I don't really think you're an expert. Calling you a "science expert" was a barrelful of sarcasm, obviously, obviously, obviously. However, I would be fascinated to hear what you would consider your specialist subject to be, because in the course of our discussions we have chartered a range of territory in which you seem to be thoroughly out of your comfort zone - from theology to philosophy, maths to science, human geography, history, the works. And when you often find yourself sinking, you play your 'cool kid' card of suggesting that knowing and reading things is bad, academia is just abstract and impractical, etc. etc. It's actually endearing. In one thread I even offered to change the subject to one of your choosing but no, you'd rather fumble along. I seriously hope you were picked first for the football team. Anyway.

This is also a simple concept; by referring to experts as experts, you are also 'tarring them with the same brush' as I am - that of knowing enough to be called an expert. It's identifying them. No generalisations or pigeon-holes are necessary - that's your habit, not mine. It's just the same logic with your racism apologetics; by referring to the racists we were talking about as racists, you were tarring them with the same brush as mine, simply of behaving in such a way to merit that label. Remember? It's the relationship between determiners and quantifiers. I don't have time. Google.

"Their core content is more about how we should live and why we are here, and such concepts will never be challenged by science." - "What concepts are you talking about?" Come on. 'Such'; UK Primary Level 3 reading comprehension; the first clause of that sentence - 'How we should live and why we are here'. In more detail, the concept of a good or virtuous life, the concept of a greater meaning to existence, etc. Unscientific concepts. If you're right in thinking that the core content of religion is reaching heaven and avoiding hell, it doesn't interact at all with the mechanics of the world. The mechanics of the world is the science - physics - the way things work. No religions are bothered by that. They're interested in why, and how we should behave. That's why science and religion have coexisted for so long -they rarely tread on each other's toes and simply describe different things. If the Bible or the Quran had tried to explain how water is absorbed by an organic membrane, or if the Origin of the Species had tried to give us examples of how we should treat our neighbours, then there would be much more conflict. It's generally only fervent atheists and ultra conservative religious zealots that don't see that difference; you're in the same boat once again.

Your the type of person who is not happy unless he is putting someone else down. In other words a useless piece of skin.

Add your reply

Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code

Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL

Guest:
(611 days ago)

an idiot coming from you??? thats RICH! i just think its funny that walterego thinks he isnt judgmetnal. yes yes we know you 2 are buddies he makes you feel better about your closet racism !! birds of a feather. your last 2 sentences totaly contradict each other. GOOD ONE!

an idiot coming from you??? thats RICH! i just think its funny that walterego thinks he isnt judgmetnal. yes yes we know you 2 are buddies he makes you feel better about your closet racism !! birds of a feather. your last 2 sentences totaly contradict each other. GOOD ONE!

Add your reply

Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code

Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL

WalterEgo(611 days ago)

Everybody is judgemental to some degree. That's why I say 'judge less', not 'don't judge'.

Religion is nonsense and science is fact. How many times does science have to prove to you that religion is nonsense.

You can pray all you want for god to cure you and you can die, or you can go to a doctor and get cured. Which do you prefer?

Add your reply

Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code

Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL

Guest:
(613 days ago)

i dont pray. but the people that do pray that we will find cures not that we get magicaly cured. religion is nonsense? i guess you know more than galileo and newton and einstein and all those thick b*stards right? i am honored to meet you. LOL. religon is never proven wrong by science and it never can be because its a diferent thing. science is how and religon is why.

i dont pray. but the people that do pray that we will find cures not that we get magicaly cured. religion is nonsense? i guess you know more than galileo and newton and einstein and all those thick b*stards right? i am honored to meet you. LOL. religon is never proven wrong by science and it never can be because its a diferent thing. science is how and religon is why.

Add your reply

Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code

Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL

Guest:
Hitchiker(613 days ago)

Sorry but your wrong.

The church has had many ideas in the past about how nature and the world around us work. All , I repeat, all of those ideas have been proven wrong.

We are not the centre of the universe as the church once taught. The earth does not go around the sun, there is no firmament in the heaven. Heaven is not "up there" as the church used to believe, there is nothing but vacuum up there. The world was not created in 7 days and was not created at all. The earth is 4.5 billion years old not 6,000. There was never a world wide flood. Indians were not punished with dark skin by god. Slavery is immoral yet the bible teaches otherwise. Women do not have to be subservient to man. Adam did not name all the animals since there was no adam and eve, this is a fact even the catholics understand.There is no such thing as a talking donkey. Morality still exists without the ten commandments and for those with little knowledge there are hundreds of commandments. Children do not have to be put to death for disrespecting their parents and you can where multiple kinds of cloth together if you wish, dont worry you wont go to hell because that doesnt exist either.

The church has had many ideas in the past about how nature and the world around us work. All , I repeat, all of those ideas have been proven wrong.

We are not the centre of the universe as the church once taught. The earth does not go around the sun, there is no firmament in the heaven. Heaven is not "up there" as the church used to believe, there is nothing but vacuum up there. The world was not created in 7 days and was not created at all. The earth is 4.5 billion years old not 6,000. There was never a world wide flood. Indians were not punished with dark skin by god. Slavery is immoral yet the bible teaches otherwise. Women do not have to be subservient to man. Adam did not name all the animals since there was no adam and eve, this is a fact even the catholics understand.There is no such thing as a talking donkey. Morality still exists without the ten commandments and for those with little knowledge there are hundreds of commandments. Children do not have to be put to death for disrespecting their parents and you can where multiple kinds of cloth together if you wish, dont worry you wont go to hell because that doesnt exist either.

Add your reply

Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code

Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL

Guest:
PA(613 days ago)

It's a delight that you think we are wrong. Thank you for your feedback, your opinion is terifically important. OK, I'm going to humour you. Most of what you've said is the kind of emotional rhetoric that people come out with when they've not investigated things themselves, but I'll pretend for a moment you're amenable to rational discourse.

You've done an excellent job at plucking bits of the Old Testament and disputing a literal interpretation. Dawkins would be proud. If only that was the same as proving theism or even just a religion 'wrong'. Let's see - Is turning the other cheek wrong? Is 'Thou shalt not steal' wrong? Is honouring your parents wrong? Was there never a Roman called Pilate, nor a Judean called Herod? Or do you accept that some parts are correct, and others aren't true/false applicable? There are very few parts of sacred texts that try to explain the universe in a remotely scientific way, and mostly they are in the Old Testament. Arguing against a religion because the oldest parts seem factually incorrect is like arguing against cosmology because it once taught that the Sun orbited the Earth. And talking of that, how many scientific theories have been proven wrong? The 4 humours? Flat earth? The geocentric solar system? The elements? Cold fusion? Even Newtonian gravity! We don't have the time to go into it, but please just think about it for 20 seconds. Most scientific theories we have ever thought of have been superceded. But sure, right now "science is fact".

It's a delight that you think we are wrong. Thank you for your feedback, your opinion is terifically important. OK, I'm going to humour you. Most of what you've said is the kind of emotional rhetoric that people come out with when they've not investigated things themselves, but I'll pretend for a moment you're amenable to rational discourse.

You've done an excellent job at plucking bits of the Old Testament and disputing a literal interpretation. Dawkins would be proud. If only that was the same as proving theism or even just a religion 'wrong'. Let's see - Is turning the other cheek wrong? Is 'Thou shalt not steal' wrong? Is honouring your parents wrong? Was there never a Roman called Pilate, nor a Judean called Herod? Or do you accept that some parts are correct, and others aren't true/false applicable? There are very few parts of sacred texts that try to explain the universe in a remotely scientific way, and mostly they are in the Old Testament. Arguing against a religion because the oldest parts seem factually incorrect is like arguing against cosmology because it once taught that the Sun orbited the Earth. And talking of that, how many scientific theories have been proven wrong? The 4 humours? Flat earth? The geocentric solar system? The elements? Cold fusion? Even Newtonian gravity! We don't have the time to go into it, but please just think about it for 20 seconds. Most scientific theories we have ever thought of have been superceded. But sure, right now "science is fact".

Add your reply

Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code

Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL

Guest:
(613 days ago)

THANK you. i havent found a single religous belever who thinks all of science is wrong. athiests just want you to think that all god squad are nutters who think the sun goes roudn the earth because it makes there guess look more sensible!

THANK you. i havent found a single religous belever who thinks all of science is wrong. athiests just want you to think that all god squad are nutters who think the sun goes roudn the earth because it makes there guess look more sensible!

Add your reply

Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code

Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL

Guest:
Hitchiker(613 days ago)

The earth goes round the sun and galileo did time for proving it.

I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with sense, reason, and intellect has intended us to forgo their use.

What an interesting theory. Can you provide a source that shows Galileo was funded by the Catholic church?

Add your reply

Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code

Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL

Guest:
mb(613 days ago)

Pisa University was founded in 1343[1] by an edict of Pope Clement. Galileo was appointed Mathematical Chair thereof. The Catholic church funded most European educational establishment by virtue of being the wealthiest entity/organisation ever in history of Mankind i.e. no one else had such a mass funds like the Catholics (how did that happen? – don’t get me started on that tangent). So Galileo was paid by the Church so he was even more courageous to stand his ground even when imprisoned and threatened with torture by the Pope! so whwn asked if he was a Believer he nodded yes - like anyone else would unless they wanted the serving Pope's favourite method of torture of a red hot poker up your arse.

Pisa University was founded in 1343[1] by an edict of Pope Clement. Galileo was appointed Mathematical Chair thereof. The Catholic church funded most European educational establishment by virtue of being the wealthiest entity/organisation ever in history of Mankind i.e. no one else had such a mass funds like the Catholics (how did that happen? – don’t get me started on that tangent). So Galileo was paid by the Church so he was even more courageous to stand his ground even when imprisoned and threatened with torture by the Pope! so whwn asked if he was a Believer he nodded yes - like anyone else would unless they wanted the serving Pope's favourite method of torture of a red hot poker up your arse.

That's amazing. Galileo originally wanted to be a clergyman and Copernicus was, so let's not pretend they believed because they were made to. But anyway, your point seems to be that not only were they obviously devout (which to be fair was the default position), their studies and research were actually funded by the church - even though the church didn't approve of the results at the time! Wow! I knew that most of the educational establishments were religious, (so pretty much all early scientific discoveries were made by clerics or religious believers), but I hadn't realised that religions had played such a part in funding scientific discovery. Fascinating. It seems that Science and Religion really did go hand in hand. I don't think that was quite what you were arguing, but thanks for that anyway!

That's amazing. Galileo originally wanted to be a clergyman and Copernicus was, so let's not pretend they believed because they were made to. But anyway, your point seems to be that not only were they obviously devout (which to be fair was the default position), their studies and research were actually funded by the church - even though the church didn't approve of the results at the time! Wow! I knew that most of the educational establishments were religious, (so pretty much all early scientific discoveries were made by clerics or religious believers), but I hadn't realised that religions had played such a part in funding scientific discovery. Fascinating. It seems that Science and Religion really did go hand in hand. I don't think that was quite what you were arguing, but thanks for that anyway!

Add your reply

Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code

Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL

Guest:
Hitchiker(612 days ago)

They most certainly did not go hand in hand. The people who were paid by the church were supposed to supply scientific evidence for the bible.

Example: we know the earth is the centre of the universe because god said so and now we need you to confirm this or we know the grand canyon was created less that 6000 years ago due to a quick flood that carved it out in a matter of days, so lets see some science to prove it. This is not the way to do science.

GALILEAO WAS SENT TO PRISON for speaking the truth so how exactly was science and religion hand in hand?, they werent.

They most certainly did not go hand in hand. The people who were paid by the church were supposed to supply scientific evidence for the bible.

Example: we know the earth is the centre of the universe because god said so and now we need you to confirm this or we know the grand canyon was created less that 6000 years ago due to a quick flood that carved it out in a matter of days, so lets see some science to prove it. This is not the way to do science.

GALILEAO WAS SENT TO PRISON for speaking the truth so how exactly was science and religion hand in hand?, they werent.

Add your reply

Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code

Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL

Guest:
Proud Agnostic(612 days ago)

And yet Copernicus, a pious canon of a Catholic cathedral, first formulated the heliocentric solar system, apparently funded by the Catholic church - (but he doesn't represent religion to you, right?) The theory caused little controversy in his time and in fact in 1582, Pope Gregory XIII himself used it to reform the calendar - (oh but that Pope doesn't represent religion either, right?) 80 years later, the cause of Copernicus was taken on by yet another Catholic, Galileo, who also apparently also wouldn't have had the money or resources to study science without the support of the Catholic church - (he's not allowed to represent religion either, no way!) Twenty years after publishing, one pope was offended by the presentation of the theory (Yes! Hurray! - finally someone you allow to represent religion), and yet the theory wouldn't have evolved without the church's money and support and his theory was developed for centuries right up until another firm christian (Newton) completed it. Hm. You seem to be a touch selective about religious people.

And within science, it's not just the heliocentric solar system theory that emerged from religion or theism; the scientific method itself (Alhaytham and Bacon), probability theory (Pascal), electricity and magnetism (Faraday), Big Bang theory (LeMaitre), and even quantum theory (Planck), etc. etc. etc. etc. But you tell me that that all these believers, all these pioneers of science were only trying to "supply scientific evidence for the bible", to prove the Grand Canyon is 6000 years old, to prove the earth is the centre of the universe? Oh I see. I better read the Bible again as you're making it sound pretty progressive.

I'm not religious, but only a dogmatic fool with a limited knowledge of history thinks that science and religion aren't inextricably intertwined. I'll leave you with the words of a theistic idiot who no doubt didn't understand science as well as you; "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind," - Einstein.

And yet Copernicus, a pious canon of a Catholic cathedral, first formulated the heliocentric solar system, apparently funded by the Catholic church - (but he doesn't represent religion to you, right?) The theory caused little controversy in his time and in fact in 1582, Pope Gregory XIII himself used it to reform the calendar - (oh but that Pope doesn't represent religion either, right?) 80 years later, the cause of Copernicus was taken on by yet another Catholic, Galileo, who also apparently also wouldn't have had the money or resources to study science without the support of the Catholic church - (he's not allowed to represent religion either, no way!) Twenty years after publishing, one pope was offended by the presentation of the theory (Yes! Hurray! - finally someone you allow to represent religion), and yet the theory wouldn't have evolved without the church's money and support and his theory was developed for centuries right up until another firm christian (Newton) completed it. Hm. You seem to be a touch selective about religious people.

And within science, it's not just the heliocentric solar system theory that emerged from religion or theism; the scientific method itself (Alhaytham and Bacon), probability theory (Pascal), electricity and magnetism (Faraday), Big Bang theory (LeMaitre), and even quantum theory (Planck), etc. etc. etc. etc. But you tell me that that all these believers, all these pioneers of science were only trying to "supply scientific evidence for the bible", to prove the Grand Canyon is 6000 years old, to prove the earth is the centre of the universe? Oh I see. I better read the Bible again as you're making it sound pretty progressive.

I'm not religious, but only a dogmatic fool with a limited knowledge of history thinks that science and religion aren't inextricably intertwined. I'll leave you with the words of a theistic idiot who no doubt didn't understand science as well as you; "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind," - Einstein.

Add your reply

Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code

Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL

Guest:
Hitchiker(613 days ago)

Thanks for chipping in here your a pal.

I believe galileo had another benefactor but I can't remember his name.

Galileo was poor but smart so rich guys wanted him in their court to show how cultured they were.

I believe galileo had another benefactor but I can't remember his name.

Galileo was poor but smart so rich guys wanted him in their court to show how cultured they were.

Add your reply

Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code

Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL

Guest:
PA(613 days ago)

Right. You've confused me. You're saying that Science and Religion have always been opposed, but you're also telling me that one of the most famous scientific pioneers was actually Christian and was even funded by the Catholic church? Take a moment.

Right. You've confused me. You're saying that Science and Religion have always been opposed, but you're also telling me that one of the most famous scientific pioneers was actually Christian and was even funded by the Catholic church? Take a moment.

Add your reply

Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code

Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL

Guest:
(613 days ago)

yes you need to go on. keep reading. galileos and copernicuses works were banned by the church orthodoxy but the men were still devout christians who beleved in there religion. darwin was in his 40s when he went off christianity long after his interest in science dont just cherry pick 1 quote from the end of his life particlulrly when you try and miss out the first half "In my most extreme fluctuations I have never been an atheist in the sense of denying the existence of a God"!! nice try! lol. muslims like elhazen invented the scientific method. athiesm followers like you want us to beleve that science and religon cant get along yet all these scientists disagree for most or all of there lives. but you know more about science and more about religon than they do right? lol

yes you need to go on. keep reading. galileos and copernicuses works were banned by the church orthodoxy but the men were still devout christians who beleved in there religion. darwin was in his 40s when he went off christianity long after his interest in science dont just cherry pick 1 quote from the end of his life particlulrly when you try and miss out the first half "In my most extreme fluctuations I have never been an atheist in the sense of denying the existence of a God"!! nice try! lol. muslims like elhazen invented the scientific method. athiesm followers like you want us to beleve that science and religon cant get along yet all these scientists disagree for most or all of there lives. but you know more about science and more about religon than they do right? lol

Add your reply

Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code

Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL

Guest:
Hitchiker(613 days ago)

Seems like your just an expert on everything.

Its spelt their not there.

Its very difficult for any scientist to get over the brain washing that society and their parents have drilled into them from birth. If you think there is a god prove it or shut up.

Its very difficult for any scientist to get over the brain washing that society and their parents have drilled into them from birth. If you think there is a god prove it or shut up.

Add your reply

Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code

Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL

Guest:
(613 days ago)

it's spelt 'it's' not 'its'!! if you want to be a grammar nazi do it right. and if you think there isnt a god prove it or shut up. no? didnt think so!!! until you can prove your belefs i will treat you the same way as every one else who cant!! go cry about it.

it's spelt 'it's' not 'its'!! if you want to be a grammar nazi do it right. and if you think there isnt a god prove it or shut up. no? didnt think so!!! until you can prove your belefs i will treat you the same way as every one else who cant!! go cry about it.

Add your reply

Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code

Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL

Guest:
Hitchiker(613 days ago)

The believers are the ones saying there is a god, so its up to them to prove it. I have no beliefs, i only deal with facts. Believing something does not make it fact. Religion has been proven wrong so many times its hard to count. Why would a god give us a book full of misinformation?, and out right lies.

The believers are the ones saying there is a god, so its up to them to prove it. I have no beliefs, i only deal with facts. Believing something does not make it fact. Religion has been proven wrong so many times its hard to count. Why would a god give us a book full of misinformation?, and out right lies.

Noah's ark, nice story too bad it never happened.

Adam and eve, nice story too bad it never happened.

Bable, nice story but never happened.

Virgin birth, nice story but never happened.

The list is endless.

Add your reply

Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code

Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL

Guest:
(613 days ago)

i wont trust the belevers just because they say there is a god and i wont trust the non belevers just because they say there isnt a god. both are guess. the non belevers likr you are the ones saying there is no god anywhere so its up to them to prove it to. its lazy and dumb to asume that they are the only ones to have to back up there beleifs. to bad for you. you actualy have to do some thinking yourself!! you deal with facts like the fact there is no god any where of any type in the universe? LOL!! good luck proving that one!! and nice work cherry picking old testament stuff and giving your opinions. religon has been proven wrong? like the part of religon that talked about a king called herod? or the part of religon that says give to charity? or the part of religon that says turn the other cheek? or do you mean just some bits of religon and really just some bits of some texts when you think of them in a certain way? whole religon proven wrong? i think not. you clearly never actualy looked into what your saying so yeh whatever. your just another fool like the isis bunch blindly swallowing what ever suits your back ground.

i wont trust the belevers just because they say there is a god and i wont trust the non belevers just because they say there isnt a god. both are guess. the non belevers likr you are the ones saying there is no god anywhere so its up to them to prove it to. its lazy and dumb to asume that they are the only ones to have to back up there beleifs. to bad for you. you actualy have to do some thinking yourself!! you deal with facts like the fact there is no god any where of any type in the universe? LOL!! good luck proving that one!! and nice work cherry picking old testament stuff and giving your opinions. religon has been proven wrong? like the part of religon that talked about a king called herod? or the part of religon that says give to charity? or the part of religon that says turn the other cheek? or do you mean just some bits of religon and really just some bits of some texts when you think of them in a certain way? whole religon proven wrong? i think not. you clearly never actualy looked into what your saying so yeh whatever. your just another fool like the isis bunch blindly swallowing what ever suits your back ground.

Add your reply

Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code

Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL

Guest:
PA(613 days ago)

Although I agree with nearly everything you say, I don't think atheists need to prove their opinions, and neither do theists. I don't expect atheists to prove their beliefs, despite how 'scientific' they think they are, because I realise that both theism and atheism are different emotional guesses and different prejudices based on the culture and environment of the guesser. I wouldn't expect people to prove that the nicest ice-cream is chocolate or the most beautiful colour is blue either. It's a shame most atheists think their belief set is superior to this, but never mind.

Although I agree with nearly everything you say, I don't think atheists need to prove their opinions, and neither do theists. I don't expect atheists to prove their beliefs, despite how 'scientific' they think they are, because I realise that both theism and atheism are different emotional guesses and different prejudices based on the culture and environment of the guesser. I wouldn't expect people to prove that the nicest ice-cream is chocolate or the most beautiful colour is blue either. It's a shame most atheists think their belief set is superior to this, but never mind.

Add your reply

Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code

Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL

Guest:
Hitchiker(613 days ago)

Im not an athiest , I do believe there is a God. I just don't believe any of the worlds religions have it right.

Something had to set the ball in motion and science cannot solve that riddle. Does this God have any interest in the affairs of man,? I highly doubt it. Just like mold grows in a petrie dish, i think we may be an unforseen accident in the universe. So far no one with God-like powers has noticed us out here in space, Im afraid of what might happen when they do discover us.

Im not an athiest , I do believe there is a God. I just don't believe any of the worlds religions have it right.

Something had to set the ball in motion and science cannot solve that riddle. Does this God have any interest in the affairs of man,? I highly doubt it. Just like mold grows in a petrie dish, i think we may be an unforseen accident in the universe. So far no one with God-like powers has noticed us out here in space, Im afraid of what might happen when they do discover us.

Add your reply

Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code

Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL

Guest:
PA(613 days ago)

Wow, is this Thundercat daring to correct someone's spelling? Priceless!

The big bang theory was discovered not invented. No one invents a theory, they propose a theory and then try to prove it. There is enough evidence to prove that it happened. Yet again you let your mouth run off.

The big bang theory was discovered not invented. No one invents a theory, they propose a theory and then try to prove it. There is enough evidence to prove that it happened. Yet again you let your mouth run off.

Add your reply

Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code

Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL

Guest:
PA(613 days ago)

The BBT was not discovered. It was suggested, and then has been tweaked ever since. It was suggested and developed by someone who believed in a Christian god, and who went on sermonising to his congregation for the rest of his life. That's why I cringe every time an ignorant atheist assumes the BBT disproves theism or even Christianity.

The BBT was not discovered. It was suggested, and then has been tweaked ever since. It was suggested and developed by someone who believed in a Christian god, and who went on sermonising to his congregation for the rest of his life. That's why I cringe every time an ignorant atheist assumes the BBT disproves theism or even Christianity.